The Afghan aid dilemma

The Afghan aid dilemmaThe Afghan aid dilemma
A view ahead of a special session of the Human Rights Council on the situation in Afghanistan, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, August 24, 2021.
REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

Representatives from some 40 donor countries for Afghanistan gathered on Monday in Geneva to make a tough choice: keep humanitarian aid flowing to a country governed by violent religious zealots, or potentially watch one in three Afghans starve to death this winter.

In the end donors collectively pledged more than $1 billion, well above the $606 million the UN had asked for in order to avoid a famine that would have affected 14 million Afghans, about a third of the population, by the end of the year. But that's a drop in the bucket for the country's immense needs.

Afghanistan still faces a looming humanitarian catastrophe. Despite mostly Western donors spending upwards of $65 billion over two decades, the country remains extremely poor due to endemic corruption, mismanagement, and above all violence. The UN estimates that Afghanistan could be on the brink of near-universal poverty by mid-2022. To make matters worse, a severe drought has wiped out 40 percent of the wheat harvest, while over 3.5 million internally displaced Afghans are almost entirely dependent on foreign aid.

China and Pakistan have already provided some assistance to fill the gap, but that's nowhere near enough for the Taliban, who require legal sources of funding beyond illicit ones like opium to run the country.

Donors are prioritizing Afghanistan over other hotspots like Syria or Venezuela because Afghanistan has gained so much global attention in the wake of the Taliban takeover and US withdrawal that no Western donor can afford to ignore it, nor take the heat for the country again becoming a terrorist guesthouse, or unleashing a refugee crisis.

"As the situation unfolds, it's critical that world leaders ramp up diplomatic engagement to deliver humanitarian support to everyone who needs it, including women and girls whose rights and wellbeing are at particular risk," David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, told GZERO. "Untended humanitarian need is a political tinderbox, and what starts in Afghanistan will not end there."

In Geneva, top donors kicked the can down the road. They agreed to fund the UN's work to help Afghans in need, without recognizing the Taliban or giving them any money. But sooner or later they'll have to deal with the regime, which can shut down all UN programs in the country if it doesn't get its way.

And here's where it gets tricky. If the Taliban want the straight-up cash the previous US-backed Afghan government received to fund most of its budget, Western donors insist they ensure at least basic rights for all Afghans, including women and ethnic minorities.

The Taliban, for their part, don't seem willing to give up too much, or anything at all. Indeed, Afghanistan's new rulers have so far demonstrated that they intend to govern exactly as they did the last time they were in charge.

Just in the past few days, the Taliban announced an all-male, almost all-Pashtun interim government whose interior minister has a $5 million US bounty on his head and the blood of hundreds of Taliban enemies on his hands; confirmed that women will only be allowed to study separate from men; and killed unarmed protesters and Afghans who worked for US forces.

The Taliban are not even being coy about it. As the country's economy implodes, the new central bank governor took bad optics to a whole new level by appearing in a photo presumably deep in thought about the right monetary policy to control inflation and keep the local currency afloat… with his trusty AK-47 by his side.

Will donors eventually persuade the Taliban to play ball? In an exclusive interview ahead of the aid conference, UN Secretary-General António Guterres told GZERO World that if donors engage "positively" with the Taliban, perhaps they'll gain enough leverage to sell the regime on the benefits of becoming "part of a normal world."

The problem is that even if the Taliban do agree, for lack of a better term, to be less Taliban-ish — and that's a very big if — many Western donors simply don't trust they'll ultimately keep their end of the deal. Meanwhile, the fate of millions of vulnerable Afghans will continue to hang in the balance.

More from GZERO Media

Former Bank of Canada and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney listens to outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's speech just before being elected to succeed Trudeau as Liberal Party leader on Sunday, March 9, in Ottawa, Canada.

REUTERS/Amber Bracken/Pool

Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, won the leadership of Canada’s Liberal Party on Sunday, succeeding outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Syrian fighters and civilians carry the coffin of a member of the Syrian security forces during his funeral in Hama province after he and 11 other colleagues were killed in an ambush by groups loyal to the ousted President Bashar al-Assad in Latakia.

Moawia Atrash/dpa via Reuters Connect

It seems that the 14-year-long civil war isn’t quite over in Syria. Since Thursday, violent clashes between deposed dictator Bashar Assad’s Alawite loyalists and supporters of the new Sunni regime in the coastal regions have left over 1,000 dead, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

US House Speaker Mike Johnson speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, U.S., in February 2025.

REUTERS/Nathan Howard

With a government shutdown deadline looming on Friday, US House Speaker Mike Johnson on Saturday introduced a continuing resolution that, if passed, would effectively fund the government through September. US President Donald Trump has backed the bill. The budget battle comes as fears rise over the impact of Trump's tariff policies, and the flip-flopping nature of their implementation. On Sunday, Trump refused to rule out that his aggressive economic policies could cause a recession.

People stand at the site of an apartment building hit by a Russian missile strike, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in the town of Dobropillia, Donetsk region, Ukraine, on March 8, 2025.
REUTERS/Nadia Karpova

Russian forces bombarded Ukraine for two consecutive nights this weekend, killing over 25 people in Donetsk and Kharkiv. Moscow also retook three towns in Kursk after troops crawled for miles through a gas pipeline and staged a surprise attack.

North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un visits a shipyard, in this photo released by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency on March 8, 2025.

KCNA via REUTERS

Cigarette in hand, and with the toothiest of grins, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un posed for photographs at a shipyard next to the makings of a “nuclear-powered strategic guided missile submarine.” The vessel appears to be a 6,000-ton-class or 7,000-ton-class one, with a payload of 10 missiles, in line with plans unveiled at the Hermit Kingdom’s 2021 party congress.

President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, photographed at the Presidential palace in Athens, Greece, on December 7, 2023.
Aris Oikonomou / Hans Lucas via Reuters

With so much of the world in geopolitical flux these days, it’s hard to pick clear winners or losers. But one leader who could be pretty happy about how things are going at the moment is Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Syrian forces head to Latakia after fighters linked to Syria's ousted leader Bashar Assad mounted a deadly attack on government forces on Thursday, March 6, 2025.

REUTERS/Mahmoud Hassano

Nearly 50 people were killed on Thursday in the deadliest clashes Syria has seen since the overthrow of Bashar Assad. Pro-Assad militants attacked security checkpoints around the western coastal town of Jableh, a stronghold of the former regime.

The Liberian-flagged tanker Ice Energy, chartered by the US government, takes Iranian oil from Iranian-flagged Lana (formerly Pegas) as part of a civil forfeiture action off the shore of Karystos, on the Island of Evia, Greece, in May 2022.
REUTERS/Costas Baltas/File Photo

The Trump administration is reportedly considering a strategy to disrupt Iran’s oil exports by stopping and inspecting Iranian oil tankers at sea. The US would use the Proliferation Security Initiative, established in 2003 to prevent the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, as a legal justification for the inspections.